Slash Boxes
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I concur I'm afraid.

    Weird I can deal with, quirky I can deal with. Having met and had the amazing fortune to go for dinner with Larry (and Damian and Uri) he really is a very humble and nice guy, if somewhat shy.

    But the religious it tweaks some very deep red flags, and it's the bit of him (in his writings at least) that makes me very nervous. In person of course, he's just very geeky.

    I was very much worried for the future of Perl too.

    But fortunately now that the lamdacamels are taking stronger and stronger
    • by educated_foo (3106) on 2005.12.31 8:33 (#45428) Journal
      I'm a dirty atheist and seem to do alright ignoring the religiosity. This, on the other hand, worries me a bit:
      But fortunately now that the lamdacamels are taking stronger and stronger hold over the the structure of Perl 6 (no global variables, inside-out-haskelly-no-sideeffect-optimisation-everywhere stuff, fundamentally sane parser -> lexer -> backend structure and so on.
      It is precisely the absense of both software engineering preachiness and worship of internal structure that to me define Perl. What if I want to use globals? What if I, as a user, don't care about the lexer's internal beauty so long as it, like a good sewer, simply works without being noticed? This is not to say that the theory isn't useful. I think some part of the Perl community has learned a number of clearer ways of thinking about languages and programs over the course of Perl 6 development. But with this comes the temptation to treat this new knowledge as an end in itself, and Perl's steadfast refusal to do so is to me what gives it its niche and its appeal.

      Where languages like Scheme and C, in different ways, gleefully expose complexity to the user for the sake of making their implementation easier, Perl tends to internalize that complexity and iteratively approach "doing what I mean". If I want Haskell or Scheme, I know where to find it, and these seem to be the logical end of a focus on dogma and theoretical purity.